Firstly, I want to say I appreciate the rant about definitions. As someone who thinks everything is subjective, I also want to argue this point. But I also think it's ironic he mentions: "Others say that the “real problem” with a lack of game design vocabulary is not a problem of standardized definitions, but a lack of terms, at all, to discuss some of the complex ideas that arise as part of the game design process."
From what I can see, it's about the balance of how we word things. On a different note, I LOVE him saying "A game is something you play, a toy is something you play with, a toy is an object you play with, a good toy is an object that is fun to play with, Fun is pleasure with surprises." Out of chapters 4 and 5 (KEEP THAT IN MIND) this is the most important thing I read. I want to say this relates to psychology. Humans are creatures who seek pleasure. We do anything that gives us pleasure. Even the things we don't want to do give us pleasure when completed. By this logic, my computer is a toy and whatever I do that I find pleasurable, is in fact a game.
For origins, it was so boring to READ OMG. The only thing I got out of the entire article was everyone going through the logistics of finding the games. It's beyond boring. Every game has a pattern. It just takes someone to notice what it is. Even if that game is literally digging up past games from dirt, there's a pattern to the way you search.
Comentarios